Firstly for those that can speak English, the word many means in essence a large but indefinite number, not most, as you yourself incorrectly presume. But that's okay, many people such as you are renowned for taking things out of context on forums such as this. For your information there are approximately tens of thousands of shareholders on the IMU register. Given the strike last year pertaining to remuneration I'd be quite confident in saying there is sure to be discontent if not disquiet surrounding pay rises, as noted in my post.
Secondly, again as you incorrectly point out I am not speaking on behalf of shareholders, I never said I was, merely expressing an opinion centred upon rules pertaining to sound corporate governance. As Governance Today notes : In summation, in an ideal world, the role of the Chairman should be for a period of somewhere between 5 – 8 years. Such a time frame provides consistency, minimises churn and the cost of such situations and provides for orderly renewal, all of which is both good governance and good for the organisation. Long periods of Chairmanship tenure is generally not good for the organisation – complacency and group think can set in and other board members can abdicate their responsibilities due to the situation; andRenewal at all levels of the organisation, at appropriate times, is fundamental to long term success – no one is sole custodian of any position.
In terms of the vote I never mentioned a vote in my post. I in no way anticipate a majority vote either way as I am not necessarily interested in such matters. Once again I am but suggesting it could be a good time for the Chairman to consider his position with respect to the forthcoming decade, given his broad financial interests and the demands sure to be placed on the chairperson in years to come. 10 years is a noteworthy milestone and opportune time to reflect and consider ones position moving forward. Whether he chooses to do so is his business, not mine, and I shall not be encouraging or discouraging shareholders to vote either way.
However I'm not sure if you are aware of the internal machinations at Imugene but as was the situation when Axel Hoos moved on most leading shareholders discuss the reappointment or removal of board positions and more often than not reach consensus in line with managements guidance. The average shareholder may or may not be privy to such conversations, and indeed even if they were their vote may not necessarily count, for the numbers are often decided, (i.e, the dye being cast) long before the final count.
On another point I can't ever remember saying I had the right to speak on behalf of all shareholders, and pontificate, as you insinuate in your ill informed post, but once again I guess members listen only to what they want to hear. Unlike you, from what I can see, I tend to read a lot about Imugene, the biotech industry and in doing so perform extensive research on the Imugene team, their product offering and position in the market place. I rarely read posts from a few disgruntled posters and would be reticent to say I formulate opinions based on those. That said I do try to attend as many shareholder lunches as possible and frequently speak with leading shareholders to keep abreast of shareholder opinion and company directives.
Finally next time you post why not actually express your own opinions, as I do daily, as opposed to being critical of others. Next time you choose to make assumptions, perhaps take some time out to comprehend and understand what it is they are actually saying.
(20min delay)